Hecht v. Green
California Supreme Court
Hecht v. Green, 61 Cal. 269 (Cal. 1882)
1882 Cal. LEXIS 595
Hecht v. Green
Opinion of the Court
The motion for nonsuit was properly granted. The evidence introduced by plaintiffs did not tend to prove anything beyond the fact that the defendants had possession of the property of Boyles & Evans by virtue of an assignment made by them for the benefit of their creditors. Having proved so much, it was incumbent on the plaintiffs to impeach. that assignment, before asking the Court to disregard it. The Court had no right to assume that it was not a valid assignment. We do not think that the provisions of the Civil Code relative to assignments for the benefit of creditors were repealed by the “Act for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors,” approved April 16,1880.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- DAVID HECHT v. WARREN GREEN
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Assignment fob the Benefit of CeedÍtobs—Attachment—Nonstht.— In an action against the garnishees, under an attachment to recover money of the judgment debtors alleged to be in their hands, it appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff that the money in the hands of the defendant was the proceeds of sales of property assigned to them by the judgment debtor for the benefit of creditors. Held: A nonsuit was properly granted. It was incumbent on the plaintiffs to impeach the assignment before asking the Court to disregard it; the Court had no right to assume that it was not a valid assignment. Id.—Insolvency Act.—The provisions of the Civil Code relative to assign- v ments for the benefit of creditors were not repealed by the “Act for the relief of insolvent debtors,” approved April 16, 1880.